Bonilla

Background

Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state prisoner, filed five similar civil-rights complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion says he is a condemned prisoner and has a pending federal petition challenging his conviction or custody with appointed counsel, as well as state-court proceedings in which he is represented by counsel. In these cases, he sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way other state and federal court cases were handled. He did not name specific defendants.

Filing-fee status

The court addressed Bonilla’s possible request to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without prepaying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court said Bonilla had previously been disqualified from that status unless he showed that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such imminent danger.

Other legal barriers and ruling

The court further stated that, even if Bonilla’s request to proceed without prepaying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal doctrines and precedents, including the rule associated with Heck v. Humphrey, the rule requiring federal courts to refrain from interfering with certain ongoing state proceedings, and other authorities cited in the opinion. The court did not identify a specific defendant or analyze the merits of a particular claim.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the five cases with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases, and to return without filing any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.